US Navy 6th Gen Fighter - F/A-XX

[donnage99]

You can tell I’m being truthful because I’m not saying anything that would get me in trouble haha.

Jennifer Rauchet is that you?
https://www.wsj.com/politics/nation...ings-with-foreign-military-officials-c16db0ea

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

It’s not.

Edit.

I’ll give everyone a hint: there are some images that help identify the shape of the the FA-XX, but as far as I’ve seen, no one has realized that’s what the images were portraying.

Can I take your silence as a yes?
Does this patch show the shape of the FA-XX from NG? I'd love to model it. Judging by the fuselage width, are we talking about side-by-side seating? Like in the ATA version of NG?
Best regards!

 

[barry bozo]

The additional question is whether we will actually see an aircraft, even an accurate rendered form, at contract announcement or like F-47 just be given a vague reference.

Almost certainly not. They'll want to hide the rear of the planform (as with F-47 renders). The rear can tell you a lot about the characteristics of the plane, not just in terms of stealth (shape + nozzle design), but also the aerodynamic performance. Lift distribution, mass distribution, cruise performance, range, aspect ratio... the list goes on. You can alter the images, sure - but even altered images still give things away that ideally you'd otherwise keep quiet.
I doubt we'll get much more than we see on the current renders teased by both primes.

Judging by the fuselage width, are we talking about side-by-side seating?

With this generation of fighters, fuselage width likely has more to do with fuel fraction and space for subsystems + equipment. With all the added capabilities, there will be a nauseating amount of subsystems to support all those capabilities. And that's not accounting for the extra area taken up by stealth features (like LO edges) as well.

Plus, side-by-side seating in "fighters" are for girls.

 

[barry bozo]

You can tell I’m being truthful because I’m not saying anything that would get me in trouble haha.

You can say anything you want on Signal, don't be shy. Hegseth walked so you could run!

/s

 

[Noads22]

You're also being vague enough that once it is revealed you can claim I told you so and no one would be able to contradict..

Yeah it’s a double edged sword unfortunately.

Once the shape is revealed, I’d reveal the pics I was talking about for at least some credibility.

 

[Noads22]

Can I take your silence as a yes?
Does this patch show the shape of the FA-XX from NG? I'd love to model it. Judging by the fuselage width, are we talking about side-by-side seating? Like in the ATA version of NG?
Best regards!

don’t take my silence as a yes on this one.

Also, the demonstrator I saw (assuming there weren’t multiple) looks nothing like the final plane. Maybe it was to demonstrate avionics…? idk that wasn’t my team.

 

[Sferrin]

View attachment 809906
Can I take your silence as a yes?
Does this patch show the shape of the FA-XX from NG? I'd love to model it. Judging by the fuselage width, are we talking about side-by-side seating? Like in the ATA version of NG?
Best regards!

Hopefully more this:



Than this:

 

[barry bozo]

don’t take my silence as a yes on this one.

Also, the demonstrator I saw (assuming there weren’t multiple) looks nothing like the final plane. Maybe it was to demonstrate avionics…? idk that wasn’t my team.

Assuming we’re talking about the same one (big assumption), I heard it was an IR shaping demonstrator, but that's just a vague recollection. I don't believe NG ever flew an OML representative demonstrator for either project. I absolutely could be wrong, but nothing I've seen supports the contrary.

 

[barry bozo]

Just adding to this - Having spoken/worked with someone who was familiar with both contractors' designs/progress (prior to the active source selections, so no restrictions on working with both), it seems that Boeing has been largely ahead most of the time. Primarily on schedule/maturity, unsure about design. Sentiments from program officials (from what I've been told second-hand) seem to reflect that same story. As always, grain of salt.

As much shit people give Boeing BDS and commercial sectors, Phantom Works is an entirely different entity and design team (and also doesn't fall under or reflect BDS). They truly are some of the best in the industry, with much of the talent (not management/execs) from McD still there. The F-47 win and potential F/A-XX win is a testament to that.

https://www.twz.com/air/northrop-defends-ability-to-build-f-a-xx-6th-gen-naval-fighters-if-selected

Seems I heard correctly based on NG's statements. A lot of "we can execute" and not "we can deliver on their timeline".

B also didn't feel the need to speak out about it either, which maybe is worth something.

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

Hopefully more this:

View attachment 809919

Thanks! This is my AF-XX model. Collins Aerospace bought it when I had it for sale with the loan sharks at Turbosquid, and they used it to represent their concept for a sixth-generation fighter. This is an image they made with my model, from which they removed the canards.
I'm very glad you like my design.
Cheers!

 

[raptor82]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2047299448921809052

View: https://x.com/colbybadhwar/status/2047299448921809052

 

[wtna7]

Is everything ready?

The other picture is of the St. Louis factory; it's blurry (I don't know how to fix it).

 

[Whopper]

Just adding to this - Having spoken/worked with someone who was familiar with both contractors' designs/progress (prior to the active source selections, so no restrictions on working with both), it seems that Boeing has been largely ahead most of the time. Primarily on schedule/maturity, unsure about design. Sentiments from program officials (from what I've been told second-hand) seem to reflect that same story. As always, grain of salt.

As much shit people give Boeing BDS and commercial sectors, Phantom Works is an entirely different entity and design team (and also doesn't fall under or reflect BDS). They truly are some of the best in the industry, with much of the talent (not management/execs) from McD still there. The F-47 win and potential F/A-XX win is a testament to that.

Even with the dumpster fire that is the T-7 Red Hawk?

 

[Ozair]

Even with the dumpster fire that is the T-7 Red Hawk?

Phantom works have also done a great job with the MQ-25...

 

[barry bozo]

Even with the dumpster fire that is the T-7 Red Hawk?

Yeah, T-7 hasn’t been great. Don’t take what I said as everything can/should be perfect from them.

Phantom works have also done a great job with the MQ-25...

Phantom Works did very well with UCLASS. The MQ-25 program transitioned to BDS early on and turned into the mess it is. It’s run very differently from both a management perspective and engineering perspective compared to UCLASS.

 

[Sferrin]

Yeah, T-7 hasn’t been great. Don’t take what I said as everything can/should be perfect from them.


Phantom Works did very well with UCLASS. The MQ-25 program transitioned to BDS early on and turned into the mess it is. It’s run very differently from both a management perspective and engineering perspective compared to UCLASS.

15 years ago.

 

[FighterJock]

Fifteen years ago Sferrin since the Phantom Ray's first flight? Doesn't time fly (pun intended).

 

[Sferrin]

Fifteen years ago Sferrin since the Phantom Ray's first flight? Doesn't time fly (pun intended).

In another timeline the USAF has Phantom Rays in service and the USN has X-47Bs.

 

[FighterJock]

Same here Sferrin it was a shame that neither service bought an inservice Phantom Ray.

 

[wtna7]

Aren't you curious?

The 445th Test Squadron was reorganized on June 29, 2022 (until it was disbanded again on May 1, 2015). Its insignia bears the Latin motto ("Suus 'iustus ludus donec non"), meaning "It's just a game until it's over."https://theaviationist.com/2023/10/23/445th-test-squadron-patch/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 

[TerraFirma]

View attachment 809906
Can I take your silence as a yes?
Does this patch show the shape of the FA-XX from NG? I'd love to model it. Judging by the fuselage width, are we talking about side-by-side seating? Like in the ATA version of NG?
Best regards!

"Modelling at the speed of a virus" is hilarious take on covid variants and their speed of adaptation and mutations. Must be some amazing rapid print prototyping out there to work at that speed.

 

[Reddington777]

Because the military did not want to invest huge sums of money, and because the F-47 accounts for a large proportion of sixth-generation fighter jets, the military was unwilling to comply, and Congress "forced" it to.

uhh...
I'm not completely sure if I misunderstood what you said here or something, but I've understood quite the opposite of what you said - numerous talking heads from the military have been advocating for F/A-XX while F-47's own projected numbers point to it being not very numerous, let alone accounting for a large proportion of 6th gen fighters.

As much shit people give Boeing BDS and commercial sectors, Phantom Works is an entirely different entity and design team (and also doesn't fall under or reflect BDS). They truly are some of the best in the industry, with much of the talent (not management/execs) from McD still there. The F-47 win and potential F/A-XX win is a testament to that.

The McD and Boeing old timers here are pretty solid. Haven't been in for long, but at least the work ethic and expertise in the division I'm in (not phantom works) are quite different from what public opinion makes it out to be. It's not to say that there isn't nonsense going around or festering elsewhere, but it seems well contained thus far by sensible but very blunt team leads/ old timers telling people they are in over their heads. That and the subtle offhand comments I've heard about Boeing Seattle...

While I get the outrage, all I can say is there are many many Boeing programs that have thus far gone smoothly, and now that I've peaked under the curtains, not everything coming out of NG is top notch either (sorry @Noads22 & @Hydroman...)

 

[Training_Dummy]

F/A-XX as far as I can gather should be 2-3x the F-47 buy on a per airframe basis (This could obviously change), but Boeing has yet to complete the buildout of its more automated manufacturing facility for F-47.

NG on the other hand is on the record saying capacity isn’t a problem. Further, the Eagle EX buy just got dramatically bigger (as common sense always suggested) and in terms of other fighter sized a/c contracts Boeing will have its hands full delivering T-7, MQ-25 and getting F-47 to a good start. In fact even before F-47 Boeing is on the hook to deliver a healthy amount of aircraft per year.

NG may have inspired a lot of confidence within DOW via the B-21 program and production dynamics.

 

[Training_Dummy]

Also - did we ever discuss how dorsal inlets may have implications for drogue placement?

 

[FlyGuy369]

Also - did we ever discuss how dorsal inlets may have implications for drogue placement?

I believe Cerebrus21 did!

 

[TomcatViP]

Don´t forget that beast spotted earlier:

Possibly the same inlet system, albeit the large delta is more probable.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...-northrop-grumman-2025-3q-report-video.50027/

 

[NMaude]

Sandboxx has put out a short video concerning the F/A-XX and NG's efforts to win it:

The US Navy is finally going to award a production contract for its new stealth fighter this August, according to reports confirmed by The Warzone, so let’s talk about what the Navy needs from this new fighter and take a look at Northrop Grumman's latest render.

 

[dark sidius]

Sandboxx has put out a short video concerning the F/A-XX and NG's efforts to win it:

In my own opinion Northrop Grumman have still win... US DOD need 2 company with the capacity to build next generation fighters.

 

[Scott Kenny]

F/A-XX as far as I can gather should be 2-3x the F-47 buy on a per airframe basis (This could obviously change), but Boeing has yet to complete the buildout of its more automated manufacturing facility for F-47.

You think FAXX is going to cost more than twice what the F-47 will? Really?
[edit: misunderstanding]

The fleet size needed for FAXX is likely on the order of 350, not counting any USMC. 12 carrier air wings, each with 2 squadrons of 12 FAXX makes 288, the Blues makes 300, both Fleet Replacement Squadrons makes 324, and likely one squadron's worth split between the all the test squadrons makes at least 336, not counting any extra airframes assigned to squadrons for maintenance coverage.

That's twice the expected buy of F-47s!

Yes, it is possible that with the transition to CCAs/UCAVs there will only be 1 FAXX squadron and 1 F-35C squadron per carrier, with all the rest of the strike airframes as UCAVs. That would make the planned FAXX buy ~170+ as a lower bound.

 

[Ozair]

You think FAXX is going to cost more than twice what the F-47 will? Really?

Think he was talking production number, not cost.

The fleet size needed for FAXX is likely on the order of 350, not counting any USMC. 12 carrier air wings, each with 2 squadrons of 12 FAXX makes 288, the Blues makes 300, both Fleet Replacement Squadrons makes 324, and likely one squadron's worth split between the all the test squadrons makes at least 336, not counting any extra airframes assigned to squadrons for maintenance coverage.

Do we really see the Blues operating the F/A-XX?

That's twice the expected buy of F-47s!

Yes, it is possible that with the transition to CCAs/UCAVs there will only be 1 FAXX squadron and 1 F-35C squadron per carrier, with all the rest of the strike airframes as UCAVs. That would make the planned FAXX buy ~170+ as a lower bound.

The CSBA Proposal from 2018 projected only a single F/A-XX squadron alongside an F-35C squadron.

The mix above is obviously dependent on the USN actually having viable carrier capable CCA in the next ten years...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Think he was talking production number, not cost.

Didn't sound like it.

Do we really see the Blues operating the F/A-XX?

Eventually, yes. Might take 10-20 years from introduction, for some reason the Blues haven't operated brand-new airframes for about the last 40 years. When they got Legacy Hornets, the airframes came from the fleet and were ~10 years old, then when they most recently got Super Bugs the airframes were 20 years old.

I could understand the Blues waiting 5 years or so for any rude surprises to be identified, but 10-20yo aircraft doesn't make any sense to me.

The CSBA Proposal from 2018 projected only a single F/A-XX squadron alongside an F-35C squadron.
[img deleted for space]

The mix above is obviously dependent on the USN actually having viable carrier capable CCA in the next ten years...

Yes, I've seen that, and am not totally sold on the idea.

Plus, I kinda expect the USN to flog off their F-35Cs relatively early because they're getting FAXX with a lot more range. USN has even been rumbling about the USMC getting some FAXX squadrons instead of F-35C!

Remember, the F-14/A-6 Carrier wings had 2 squadrons of Tomcats, 2 squadrons of Hornets, and the equivalent of 2 squadrons of A-6s but 1 "squadron" was half refuelers and half Prowlers (in practice it was operated as an overstrength squadron of A-6s and a Prowler detachment).

Plus, the plan for F-14/A-12 wings was 2 squadrons of Tomcats and 2 squadrons of Avengers. So riffing off that Air Wing plan gets you 24x FAXX per wing and ~24x UCAVs per wing.

 

[Training_Dummy]

You think FAXX is going to cost more than twice what the F-47 will? Really?

The fleet size needed for FAXX is likely on the order of 350, not counting any USMC. 12 carrier air wings, each with 2 squadrons of 12 FAXX makes 288, the Blues makes 300, both Fleet Replacement Squadrons makes 324, and likely one squadron's worth split between the all the test squadrons makes at least 336, not counting any extra airframes assigned to squadrons for maintenance coverage.

That's twice the expected buy of F-47s!

Yes, it is possible that with the transition to CCAs/UCAVs there will only be 1 FAXX squadron and 1 F-35C squadron per carrier, with all the rest of the strike airframes as UCAVs. That would make the planned FAXX buy ~170+ as a lower bound.

You misread or i was unclear or both. XX will be cheaper and purchased in greater quantities than F-47.

 

[Seragina]

Current inventory
Navy
F18: 775
F35: 72 (planned 273)
total: 847
if CCA ratio is 4:1 => 170 manned A/C <- this is the short answer

Marine Corpse
AV8: 87
F18: 138
F35: 127 (planned 430)
MQ9: 4 (planned 14)
total: 356
obviously there's a 20% expansion of manned A/C planned
It seems there will be more drones for the troops than the flying section.

The long answer is eventually F/A-XX will replace all in the Navy but in phases and with a timed delay of say 10 years
the batches or lots will transition to CCA conversion. And about 30 years after introduction the next major F/A-XX generation will take over. If we consider a 10-year batch or lot production plan then there will always only 170 manned A/Cs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You misread or i was unclear or both. XX will be cheaper and purchased in greater quantities than F-47.

Ah, gotcha, correcting.

if CCA ratio is 4:1 => 170 manned A/C [in Navy]<- this is the short answer

It doesn't look like the planned ratio is 4:1 in total units. Might be 4:1 in the air, though.

The CSBA model is suggesting about 1.8:1 (36:20), and that's including tankers. 1.2:1 for combat airframes.

 

[J McInn]

You think FAXX is going to cost more than twice what the F-47 will? Really?
[edit: misunderstanding]

The fleet size needed for FAXX is likely on the order of 350, not counting any USMC. 12 carrier air wings, each with 2 squadrons of 12 FAXX makes 288, the Blues makes 300, both Fleet Replacement Squadrons makes 324, and likely one squadron's worth split between the all the test squadrons makes at least 336, not counting any extra airframes assigned to squadrons for maintenance coverage.

That's twice the expected buy of F-47s!

Yes, it is possible that with the transition to CCAs/UCAVs there will only be 1 FAXX squadron and 1 F-35C squadron per carrier, with all the rest of the strike airframes as UCAVs. That would make the planned FAXX buy ~170+ as a lower bound. There are 9 carrier air wings. The current speculation/plan is 1 F/A-XX squadron per carrier air wing. FRS squadrons are large, 30-40 aircraft based on needs.

There are currently only 9 Carrier air wings. FRS squadrons are large, like 30-40 aircraft based on training needs (F-35 only has one FRS, though Oceana and VA congressional delegation want that changed).

If we stick with one F/A-XX squadron per wing:
9 squadrons = 108
1 FRS= 30-40
test & Eval= 12-20? (pax river/China lake)
attrition reserve= ?
backup aircraft (DMFA)= ?

Yes, USN would need 170(ish) F/A-XX to field one squadron per air wing, probably more.

The USAF was usually 60/40 (ish)- Primary aircraft inventory/ BAI, TAI, attrition, test, etc at least until recently when they've been trying to discard PAI/BAI to "primary mission inventory" shell game.
Currently, the USN has roughly 575 F-18E/F. There 30-31 active F-18 VFA squadrons. It works out to 370(ish) in squadrons assigned to carrier air wings.

Difficult to speculate on what future carrier air wing composition will be, they keep changing F-35C squadron size even in the notional 2030 wing. We will also likely be flying the F-18E/F's into 2040's probably depending on fatigue life, but current estimated service life remaining for the block II SLM is between 5,000 to 6,000 hours, equal to their original service life and we are still receiving new build block III. Would guess that the projected numbers for F/A-XX will very much depend on how the current fleet is doing when the F/A-XX is ready.

 

[wtna7]

provide something
https://designation-systems.net/usmilav/coverdesignations.html

 

[FighterJock]

A highly interesting find wtna 7.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

provide something
https://designation-systems.net/usmilav/coverdesignations.html

Huh? This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread, which is the F/A-XX program.

And I should know, because I created that web page (quite a while ago).

 

[Scott Kenny]

Huh? This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread, which is the F/A-XX program.

And I should know, because I created that web page (quite a while ago).

It may have shown us the designation numbers of the NGAD/FAXX Tech Demonstrators, being the YF-220 and YF-45D.

--------------------------

There are currently only 9 Carrier air wings.

Ah. Well, the USN needs to build it back up to 12 carriers and air wings, though I'm not totally sure how to get there even with stretching outgoing Nimitz-class 2 years each and accelerating Ford-class production by 2 years each.

FRS squadrons are large, like 30-40 aircraft based on training needs (F-35 only has one FRS, though Oceana and VA congressional delegation want that changed).

If we stick with one F/A-XX squadron per wing:
9 squadrons = 108
1 FRS= 30-40
test & Eval= 12-20? (pax river/China lake)
attrition reserve= ?
backup aircraft (DMFA)= ?

Yes, USN would need 170(ish) F/A-XX to field one squadron per air wing, probably more.

Okay, fair enough. Didn't realize the FRS squadrons were that big.

So, for 2x FAXX squadrons per wing and the Blues flying FAXX we'd be looking at a buy of about 300, not counting attrition reserve or backup aircraft.

The USAF was usually 60/40 (ish)- Primary aircraft inventory/ BAI, TAI, attrition, test, etc at least until recently when they've been trying to discard PAI/BAI to "primary mission inventory" shell game.
Currently, the USN has roughly 575 F-18E/F. There 30-31 active F-18 VFA squadrons. It works out to 370(ish) in squadrons assigned to carrier air wings.

Using the Super Bug numbers, 370/575=~0.65, we'd be looking at a total of about 260 FAXX total buy on the "1x squadron per wing" model and 460 FAXX total buy on the "2x squadrons per wing" with only 9 carrier air wings.

Difficult to speculate on what future carrier air wing composition will be, they keep changing F-35C squadron size even in the notional 2030 wing. We will also likely be flying the F-18E/F's into 2040's probably depending on fatigue life, but current estimated service life remaining for the block II SLM is between 5,000 to 6,000 hours, equal to their original service life and we are still receiving new build block III.

Yeah, the USN is not making it easy to forecast.

Would guess that the projected numbers for F/A-XX will very much depend on how the current fleet is doing when the F/A-XX is ready.

The real question is how things shake out on the UCAV side. How big is the CSBA multirole UCAV? X-47 size (2x2000lb)? Bigger than that (4x AGM-158/6x 2000lb)?

Obviously the USN has had X-47s operating off carriers before, and those are teeny things (38ft long and 31ft wings folded, slightly wider than an A-4 Skyhawk).

I would hope that the USN goes with the larger side. 3000nmi range, 4x AGM-158/6x 2000lb.

 

[FighterJock]

Same here Scott Kenny, the F/A-XX really needs to have long range especially of the 3000nmi.